American politics

The foreign-policy debate

A win for Obama

A FEW days ago, Lexington attended a breakfast in Washington for foreign ambassadors, business types and politicians, at which Charlie Cook, the veteran political sage and forecaster, was asked about the third and final presidential debate, on foreign policy. His cheerful advice to the ambassadors: just don’t watch—the debate on October 22nd will bear no resemblance to the next four years of American foreign policy.

Mr Cook’s warning of a foreign-policy fudge was sound. The debate from Boca Raton, Florida, shed little light on how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would differ in handling Iran’s nuclear programme, Syria's civil war, extremism in the Arab world, or the rise of China.

To a remarkable degree, Mr Romney tacked to the moderate centre, seeking above all to distance himself from the record of George W. Bush and the sweeping ambitions of the neoconservative right. The Republican nominee stressed his desire for peace, played down the chances that America would launch fresh military campaigns on his watch and endorsed Mr Obama’s hopes for a negotiated end to such crises as the Iranian nuclear conundrum. Speaking of the threat from Islamic extremism, he agreed with the administration’s approach of targeted drone strikes, but added that America should not forget the tools of soft power. “We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” Mr Romney said.

In a big turnaround, Mr Romney abandoned his pledge to review Mr Obama’s plan to pull all American combat troops out of Afghanistan in 2014. The candidate also unceremoniously dropped any suggestion that the administration covered up the role of al-Qaeda-linked militants in the killing of America’s ambassador to Libya, or contributed to the envoy’s death by stinting on diplomatic security. He only offered fleeting references to the tragedy, as he repeatedly suggested that the world was in a state of “tumult”, showing that Mr Obama’s foreign policy was unravelling. It took him fully 45 minutes to revisit a favourite charge from the campaign trail, that Mr Obama had emboldened America’s enemies, such as Iran, by projecting an image of an apologetic, weak America abroad.

That caution made it harder for Mr Romney to lose the debate by offending viewers—and he duly avoided any gaffes. Yet by hugging the president tight Mr Romney also gave up any hope of a decisive win. His objective was instead to appeal to wavering voters disappointed with the president, and to make Mr Obama’s foreign policy seem like one more broken promise. (In an opening sally about the Arab spring, Mr Romney even talked of “hope” and “change” being undermined in the region, in what sounded like a subliminal reminder of Mr Obama’s domestic pitch of four years earlier.)

As for Mr Obama, he could justifiably claim to have won the debate. With millions of Americans choosing to watch baseball or football rather than a discussion of foreign policy, the night belonged to zingers and scripted soundbites, and the president had the best of that contest. He was also able to use the dignity of his office to useful effect, repeatedly talking of lessons he had learned as commander-in-chief.

Many Americans will only see one extract from the debate, an exchange about military spending. Mr Romney has a (frankly nonsensical) plan to set American defence spending at the arbitrary level of 4% of national wealth, whether military commanders have asked for that funding or not. Seeking to paint Mr Obama as undermining the military with spending cuts, the Republican said that the present navy was the smallest since 1917, with just 285 ships. Mr Obama pounced, responding, "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed... The question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities."

Yet if the debate was short on foreign-policy revelations, there were good reasons to tune in and watch. Above all, the event offered a snapshot of the voter blocks being targeted by the two candidates a fortnight ahead of election day.

Judging by Mr Romney’s answers, he is confident that his conservative base is fired up and ready to vote, and so can afford to tack smartly to the centre in search of rustbelt voters worried about jobs lost to China. Many of his answers sounded tailored to a block of undecided voters long ago identified by Romney aides as a key target: middle-aged women worried about schools and jobs for their children.

Mr Obama likely fired up his core supporters with aggressive swipes at Mr Romney's flip-floppery. But he was also clearly worried about rustbelt voters, especially those in car-making states, to judge by his detailed references to the administration's bail-out of Detroit. When it came to women voters, Mr Obama’s attempts to show empathy and cast foreign policy in terms of human interest, often with a female slant, were even more pronounced. Small wonder, when recent polls have shown the president’s once imposing lead among women shrinking to single digits.

At times, both men headed a farcical distance away from foreign policy, as they sought to appeal to war-weary, inward-looking voters. Thus, although they found no time to discuss climate change, the next generation of Chinese leaders, the euro-zone crisis, Africa or—in any detail—the future of Iraq, North Korea or Russia, they did tangle over optimal class sizes in American schools, tax rates and the job creation record of small businesses in Massachusetts when Mr Romney was governor.

Mr Obama’s camp will be hoping that their man’s victory in the final debate will have gone some way to rebuilding his lead among women voters, and shoring up his wafer-thin advantage in such key swing states as Ohio. The president did not hurt his cause overall, though there were moments when his aggression may have struck some viewers as too sharp and too nakedly political.

Mr Romney, though sounding more tired and waffly than in either of the previous debates, did not fall into any huge holes, and continued his efforts to appear a reasonable, moderate figure. If his main objective was to pass the threshold test of being a potential commander-in-chief, he probably succeeded, even if some of his pronouncements did not bear intense scrutiny. The Republican has never sold himself as a foreign-policy expert. For him, this final debate was about projecting adult leadership.

There will be no more face-to-face meetings now for Mr Obama and Mr Romney. Both men are off on gruelling cross-country tours that will last until election day on November 6th. After the race-altering shock of a disastrous first debate for the president, back on October 3rd, this third debate left the contest where it has been for some days: absolutely deadlocked.

Another clear win for Obama. Romney's strategy depends on voters having the memory of a goldfish and the attention span of a gnat. He reinvents himself from minute to minute, second to second. He can't even be called a liar because what he advocates on any given issue is so consistently inconsistent. It's incoherent gibberish, though if you catch him in extremely small doses he may give the impression of a square-jawed, resolute and adult leader. If he wins, it will be a great tribute to cynicism. Americans, you will get the leader you deserve. Think carefully.

As Romney strikes a conciliatory tone, again changing tactics, let's all remember what it means to elect into office a man representing a party that will only deal if they are in charge, and otherwise will wreck the living room until they are made so. Remember Boehner and party leaders declaring they'll do anything to make a Obama a one term president?
It is ruinious to reward this behavior, regardless of your political affiliation. For all of America's electorial faults, he won, that was the 'will' of the people, and the Republican party leadership saw fit to shit on that. Think about it.

Again Romney petulantly demanded getting the last word, arguing (and losing) with the moderator, talking over everyone, and for what? Whenever held to any degree of detail, he echoed Obama's policies. He again got slapped on the wrist for the phony "Apology Tour" issue. And he again refused to give details on how he would pay for any of his proposals, and even added another, a focus on foreign aid that is anathema to the Right.
In the end, I believe Obama won, both on substance and style here. Sadly, I think the people that haven't made up their minds stopped paying attention after the first debate.

In one of the recent comments I read, the question was raised as to whether Mr. Romney is a coward, a legitimate concern that I believe does deserve some discussion, especially considering this final debate on Foreign Policy.

Some may attack me for delving too far into the past, bringing up painful subjects from a bygone time, yet I am bothered greatly that Mitt was living well in France for almost three years while my generation was fighting a particularly dirty war in Vietnam. As a veteran from that era, I fully understand conscientious objection, an unwillingness to enlist on the part of those who opposed the war, but what I can't understand is why someone who picketed in opposition to war protesters, as Romney did at Stanford University, took flight to a foreign country rather than enlist.

Last week, Ann Romney told a television audience that Mormons do not have any religious barriers to military service, as do Quakers and some others, begging the obvious question as to why not a single Romney has ever enlisted during a time of war, not Mitt during the Vietnam war, not any of his five sons since 9/11, not Mitt’s father during World War 2, not Mitt’s Grandfather during World War 1, not Mitt’s Great Grandfather during the Civil War, not a single ancestor that I could find. The percentages must be minuscule, families whose ancestors came to America in the early part of the 19th century yet have not a single family member who has ever enlisted, ever fought in any of America’s many wars, foreign or domestic.

I can’t shake the strong feeling that this matters. Please convince me otherwise.

As we put it in Brasil, one in the hand is worth two in the brassiere, about as good an argument for sticking with a leader you may not always agree with but who has delivered pretty well (over mind-numbing obstruction) on most of his promises to make this a kinder, more respected country.

Although it is perfectly understandable that the average American is more concerned with their own economic future, it is tragic Americans base so much of their presidential voting decision on economics, and so little on foreign policy.

Anyone with a firm grip on political and economic policy understands U.S. Presidents have minimal impact on the economy, while having near dictatorial control over foreign policy.

In fact, one of the few ways presidents can have a significant impact on the economy is indirectly, via foreign policy: blow trillions of dollars on overseas wars, and you break the back of the domestic economy (thank you G.W.).

We also have two on going wars, that the previous Republican administration lead US into recklessly. This President is now leading us out responsibly. No more chicken hawk Republican neo-cons. Vote for a Democrat, 44 for 4 more.

“Just the other day I was in Wilmington, Delaware. A young man named Gary came up to me and said please Mr Romney, help me. He said I have lost my job, my home and all of my clothes. He was bare-naked, exposed and weeping. I cradled his teary face against my large, hirsute chest. My lovely wife Ann got down on her knees and massaged Gary's thighs, vigorously. Well Gary, if you're watching tonight, maybe through the window of a domestic electrical goods store, you deserve better than this. The American people deserve better than this. If you elect me as your President I will find your clothes, repurchase them, resell them decupling the revenue you initially secured, and I will buy you an illegal firearm so you can protect yourself from the Chinese currency bastards! God bless America! Save our troops!”
Mitt Romney

Nothing of substance that he would do differently. But it did remain clear that he thinks he could just order/demand that other countries do what he wants, and it would happen. Happen better than via the kind of negotiation that Mr Obama has (necessarily) undertaken to get things done.

That lack of understanding that the world is not a corporation, with the President of the United States as CEO, is not encouraging. One wonders how many unnecessary disasters would be required to get the concept home to a President Romney.

You've heard about 'Greed is good'. Well, 'War is better'. War is one of the biggest industry in terms of spending, even if 2 of them can go on the credit card, with one started on completely erroneous grounds, and to pay for these as well as new ones, social safety nets including healthcare cannot be provided.

It's good for business to keep a few wars going at any one time (the planned logistics has been for 2 global conflicts at any one time since Eisenhower)& to give a decent return on investment to those paying a few millions into your Super-PAC to get you elected as the new president for 'Peace'.

The people vilifying him for this - like the poster who's put up the NYTimes article link - I'm betting are the same people who cried foul when Wall Street was bailed out.

You have to be intellectually consistent. Why is bailing out Wall Street a bad idea but bailing out Detroit a good one?

Did both sectors not make bad decisions?

And is Wall Street not as vital to the American economy as Detroit?

So why the double standard? And where does such intervention stop?

The American airline industry employs hundreds of thousands and has been in financial trouble for years - do we bail them out with tax payer dollars too?

How about the housing and building industry? Where do you draw the line?

Romney's position in the article is exactly what business experts had been saying since at least the year 2000 - that Detroit's business model was structurally unsound and needed to be turned around. Is that so hard to understand? Or do we keep plastering the cracks until the next crisis and then have another bailout.

Either you are for the government bailing out American companies or you are not. Obama will willingly say that he hated bailing out the banks but was totally for bailing out the car companies.